How about some input on this low tech fix

[balto]

Hi,

It is snowing.., so no work..., yahooooooo.

I am going to list this set of house rules out there for comment. How about some legitimate input on these?


1) Allies much take the Vichy Option.

2) Uxbridge has created a change to the file C:\Matrix Games\World War 2 Road to Victory\data\scenarios\EUROPE 1939 “countries.csv” This gives the USA negative 1300 but turns this 1300 into USA research (I think Uxbridge turned it into Research?) – so it keeps the USA out of the game until about May 1941. I think the number should be negative 2000. You can change it if you want but I think that would take someone of Uxbridge intellect to do that. I can send this file to you if you want to use it.

3) Limit all transfers of PP from USA to Britain/neutrals to 50PP TOTAL per turn after the Lend Lease event kicks in.

4) Limit all transfers of PP from Britain to Russia to 50PP via Archangel per turn after the Lend Lease event kicks in.

5) Limit all transfers of PP from USA to Britain/Russia to 50PP TOTAL per turn after USA enter war.

This has the effect of limiting transfers from USA of 50PP per turn in total.

If you want to try this out, I can be either side

[doomtrader]

As in another thread has been mentioned.
 
I reduced initial PP in NY.
Now as USA you just don't have enough PP to send them.

[cpdeyoung]

Send who?  Gentlemen, I do not want to beat a dead horse but per my "house rules" not one PP went to the non beligerent Soviet Union from the USA, in my AAR game.  Not one PP went to Great Britain from the USA till the Lend Lease event fired, at which point only the 50PP went to Great Britain. When Germany invaded the USSR, per the lend lease event the USA sent 50PP to the Soviet Union too.
 
Are we talking about no more Lend Lease?  Are you really upset that convoys went from neutral USA to neutral Greece and neutral Norway? Greece has yet to fight a battle, and the Mighty Norge has yet to fire a 15" gun in anger.  How exactly did these transfers to neutrals affect the game?
 
Are you really willing to limit the shipments from the USA to their allies to 50PP?  After the USA is at war?
 
What possible historical justification do you have for this?  The WW2 in WW2:RtV does lead one to thinking we are simulating World war Two.
 
My Americans spent their PP on research, with the odd convoy to Norway and Greece.  When Lend Lease kicked in they used the LL convoys as the event established them.  In the PBEM the USA had about 4,000 points on December 7th, and a pile of research.  The Soviets did not get these points.
 
How did the USA shipments cause problems worthy of so much fixing?
 
USA shipments = red herring.
 
Chuck

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

Send who?  Gentlemen, I do not want to beat a dead horse but per my "house rules" not one PP went to the non beligerent Soviet Union from the USA, in my AAR game.  Not one PP went to Great Britain from the USA till the Lend Lease event fired, at which point only the 50PP went to Great Britain. When Germany invaded the USSR, per the lend lease event the USA sent 50PP to the Soviet Union too.

Are we talking about no more Lend Lease?  Are you really upset that convoys went from neutral USA to neutral Greece and neutral Norway? Greece has yet to fight a battle, and the Mighty Norge has yet to fire a 15" gun in anger.  How exactly did these transfers to neutrals affect the game?

Are you really willing to limit the shipments from the USA to their allies to 50PP?  After the USA is at war?

What possible historical justification do you have for this?  The WW2 in WW2:RtV does lead one to thinking we are simulating World war Two.

My Americans spent their PP on research, with the odd convoy to Norway and Greece.  When Lend Lease kicked in they used the LL convoys as the event established them.  In the PBEM the USA had about 4,000 points on December 7th, and a pile of research.  The Soviets did not get these points.

How did the USA shipments cause problems worthy of so much fixing?

USA shipments = red herring.

Chuck

I think what this will do, at least I hope it does, is make the USA face a choice. Send PP's to others or use them for their own research/production. At the moment they can do both to the max. This was not the case historically, it was 44 before things were ramped up enough to do both.

[cpdeyoung]

Dear Marty,
 
Lend Lease happened, and was very significant before 1944.  The levels of aid to the Soviets and the British were hugely significant and we do not want to get away from this.  The USA was a very powerful force in this war.  I find it weird to type those words!  It is summer of 1942 now and I am not yet ready to invade any thing much larger than Denmark, but I do think I will be ready for Husky, and perhaps Overlord a bit sooner than happened historically.  Think of Copenhagen as a successful St Nazaire raid.
 
I would not have a problem with starting the USA with lower research levels.  You were right in predicting that the US corps would be a bit stronger than I was comfortable with in 1942! I will support careful tested modification of production points per turn, and also have asked for slider type tools for such mods.
 
Would you believe that just months ago everyone was trying to make the Soviets more survivable!
 
Chuck

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

Dear Marty,

Lend Lease happened, and was very significant before 1944.  The levels of aid to the Soviets and the British were hugely significant and we do not want to get away from this.  The USA was a very powerful force in this war.  I find it weird to type those words!  It is summer of 1942 now and I am not yet ready to invade any thing much larger than Denmark, but I do think I will be ready for Husky, and perhaps Overlord a bit sooner than happened historically.  Think of Copenhagen as a successful St Nazaire raid.

I would not have a problem with starting the USA with lower research levels.  You were right in predicting that the US corps would be a bit stronger than I was comfortable with in 1942! I will support careful tested modification of production points per turn, and also have asked for slider type tools for such mods.

Would you believe that just months ago everyone was trying to make the Soviets more survivable!

Chuck

I'm not saying lend lease didn't happen or that it shouldn't be in the game. It most certainly should. It just needs to be made a difficult choice not pretty much a no brainer to send the max every turn from the git-go.

You think it is odd that you can only invade Denmark in 1942? You shouldn't be able to invade anywhere in 1942. [:)]
It was late 1942 before the US had the equipment, manpower and doctrine to invade Vichy North Africa, and it was pretty much hoped for that they wouldn't put up any resistance! When you plant a handful of corps on mainland Europe in 1942 and stay there then something is rotten in Denmark [:)]

[cpdeyoung]

There was a L2 infantry division in Copenhagen, 1.5 SP, and somehow I managed to defeat it at a cost of 2 air SP, and 4 infantry SP.  Yep, this the mighty 1944 USA at work!  Please give me a break.  I think the invasion and battle of Guadalcanal started in two months game time, and the USA seemed to handle that pretty well.
 
The USA were not battle hardened, but they were armed forces!
 
Chuck

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

Would you believe that just months ago everyone was trying to make the Soviets more survivable!

Chuck

The survivability of the USSR should always be in question in the early part of the war. It's the best part! [:)]
I've never thought they were overly strong unless they spent to much on air or research early. They need bodies. They should pretty much be throwing all sorts crap in front of the Germans to slow them down in 41 and hold Leningrad/Moscow/Rostov line if possible. They should still be squirming in 42!
I understand the designers wanted to keep the game pretty simple so implementing changes to make these things possible might not be able to be done. But I think a few tweaks to the game can be made that allow you to recreate the historical situation if you choose or try different strategies if you like.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

There was a L2 infantry division in Copenhagen, 1.5 SP, and somehow I managed to defeat it at a cost of 2 air SP, and 4 infantry SP.  Yep, this the mighty 1944 USA at work!  Please give me a break.  I think the invasion and battle of Guadalcanal started in two months game time, and the USA seemed to handle that pretty well.

The USA were not battle hardened, but they were armed forces!

Chuck

It was which is why you shouldn't be invading Europe in 42, all the landing craft were in the Pacific [:D]

You do realize that 3 corps was about the size of the US forces at Normandy don't you and they only had to cross the English Channel! [;)]

[cpdeyoung]

What can I say, superior leadership.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

What can I say, superior leadership.

Isn't that what Custer said too? [:D]

[Uxbridge]

Our current line for USA now looks like this. There's no research for USA whatsoever before they begin to recieve PP's.

53;1;USA;0x00A0C544;0x00FFFFFF;0x008e965a;0x00FFFFFF;0;0;1;0;100;0;0;1;1;1;2;1;2;0;-1350;0;6;250;4;6;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;3;0;0;0;0;0;65;130;876;0;0;0;0;0;20;1;4;2;0;3;0;24;30;38;50;0;0;0;0

But remember, we're not playing the same scenario. This works well, I think, for us.

[balto]

Hi Uxbridge.  Before you go, can I ask you some questions.  The change you gave me, I put in the campaign game.  So what do you mean when you say "you are not playing the same scenario."  (2) When I put your code change in the campaign (which Mike and I are using), are you saying that -1350 was not plowed back into research.  They have same research level as if it was turn 1?
 
Thank you for your vast intelligence.

[Uxbridge]

Hi again

I only meant:

1.   We're playing a rather different scenario, where there's a much higher cost of replacements and where you can't buy new land or naval units at all. They comes as pre-set reinforcements. This means that the result you achieve playing the standard scenario may very well differ from ours. But there's no technical problem using the # 53-line!

2.   My main reason for setting the US PP-level at minus 1350 was that they should not be allowed to give PPs to UK and, especially, France in the beginning. I was still under the illusion that USA should be allowed to research, though, why I gave them low starting levels but a rather a high investement level. I've now changed that. USA is to strong initially, so in the new thread above, they don't have any research at all.

Before I start another war between you all, remember that point 2 must be seen in light of point 1. Germany's initial income is much lower, for instance, and we have economical effects related to the Romanian oil, German synthetic fuel, Scandinavian iron ore, German trade with the Balkans, Finnish zink, etc, etc. The Russian economy has also been altered. On top of that, the combat system is much changed and home rules govern part of it's use. So we have a different balance in our game than you have in yours.

[balto]

So the code above is different then the one you gave me before?  The one above has zero research for USA and the first one you gave me gives them research.  Is that correct?
 
Thanks again.

[Uxbridge]

Quite right. [:)]

[Michael the Pole]

IMHO this is the correct approach, the US is just to big, at present. I think everyone is familiar by now with my views on German technical superiority; with the need to research the Bomb, the US should be able to field a very large (although not as large as the Soviet Army) air and ground force in Europe, that is not the technical equal of the Germans. (Someone quoted my second favorite Stalinism the other day, that numbers have their own superiority.)
One of the problems we're confronting here, as Balto has made clear to me in our 'en camera' conversations, is the impotence of the u-boat force. A significant portion of Allied production was devoted to replacing freighter (and tanker) capacity lost to uboats. Another significant percentage went to addressing the "amphib bottleneck" which continued to be the single greatest strategic restraining factor faced by the Allies. It shouldnt be too dificult to determine Allied shipping losses as a percentage of total tonnage and then we should be able to reverse engineer the uboat force from that figure.
The bottom line here is that the US did not have unlimited resources. Every production decision made by the Americans should be painfull, and should mean that something else isn't going to be done.

[cpdeyoung]

Dear Mike,

That would be an interesting situation.  It would give you a chance to try an alternative history approach to WW2.

If there was one thing that was not painful for the USA it was production.  Your very mention of "the bomb" makes this clear.  It was an expensive project, and I believe ranked second in cost of all the gazillion of projects they kicked off.  The most common approach to solving a dilemma for the American reseachers was, when given two paths, try both!  Two types of bomb, three ways to obtain fissionable material, over and over the huge, gigantic economy provided an answer to every problem posed.

Lose some ships at Pearl : refloat them.  Losing merchant ships : produce them at a pace that takes our breath away today.  The production figures for the USA approach "unlimited resources".  The designs may not be the best, heck, they were not the best, but making plenty was not a problem.  This was an economy begging for another task to be thrown at it.  A depression economy that was filling its huge deficit of production and waxing strong each year.

I simply could not disagree more with the idea that the US economy was strained, or production decisions "painful".  The landing craft bottleneck reflects an immense need for these vessels, especially because the planners wanted it all.  Anvil-Dragoon, the Pacific, and Overlord.  The Allied amphibious forces were splendid, and oh so numerous, but did require the planners to stagger the landing in Normandy and that in the south of France.

It all got done, and the economy called for more.

Oh yeah, I believe I am correct about the biggest research project of the war, one the average person on the street will not identifty : The B-29.

As to the issue of naval, U-Boat, simulation in this game.  How many of our Axis players make the very painful decisions the historic Germans did.  U-Boat production, naval production by the Germans was "painful".  Weinberg points out how many tanks were not built with the production of a sub, not to mention the surface fleet which was still worked on so late in the war. How many of our Axis players build a navy when faced with the choice to build less tanks.  Someone once characterized many players of this game as pushing tanks along the steppes.  We are not a crew who hit the "Deploy new ship" button often.  The Germans had subs because they made painful choices to plow PP into subs, something few of us do.  This game has a mechanism to produce much more naval power for the Axis, but few choose to use it.

How go things in your PBEM game?  Where are you "turn" wise?

Chuck

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

Dear Mike,

That would be an interesting situation.  It would give you a chance to try an alternative history approach to WW2.


I simply could not disagree more with the idea that the US economy was strained, or production decisions "painful".  The landing craft bottleneck reflects an immense need for these vessels, especially because the planners wanted it all.  Anvil-Dragoon, the Pacific, and Overlord.  The Allied amphibious forces were splendid, and oh so numerous, but did require the planners to stagger the landing in Normandy and that in the south of France.

It all got done, and the economy called for more.
...
As to the issue of naval, U-Boat, simulation in this game.  How many of our Axis players make the very painful decisions the historic Germans did.  U-Boat production, naval production by the Germans was "painful".  Weinberg points out how many tanks were not built with the production of a sub, not to mention the surface fleet which was still worked on so late in the war. How many of our Axis players build a navy when faced with the choice to build less tanks.  Someone once characterized many players of this game as pushing tanks along the steppes.  We are not a crew who hit the "Deploy new ship" button often.  The Germans had subs because they made painful choices to plow PP into subs, something few of us do.  This game has a mechanism to produce much more naval power for the Axis, but few choose to use it.

How go things in your PBEM game?  Where are you "turn" wise?

Chuck

Howdy, Chuck!
And how is every little thing up in the Great White North? (I understand from Glenn that he is experiencing enhanced evidence of global warming -- has it reached down to ya'll yet?)
Now, let's see. If you dont think that the Allies we're faced with difficult production decisions, I highly recommend that you re-read the last two volumns of Churchill's history. He is FOREVER whineing about the lack of LSTs and freighter capacity, the shortage of aerial lift, and the serious manpower shortage (battle ready divisions - esp infantry in the second half of 1944.) The way that the US Chiefs of Staff gutted the Italian Campaign, and the restraint shown by the British to having their premier fighting force (8th Army) hung out to dry in an essentially 1:1 war of attrition against Kesselring is quite admirable. The entire Med was not only denied the reinforcements they needed to get decent odds in their attacks, but their best units (land, naval and airpower) were repeatedly stripped to reinforce other theatres. (Yet, they were never allowed to revert to the defensive.) And, if you think that the Med had it bad, look at Southwest Asia (India/China/Burma)!
In 1944 the Allies were short of infantry divisions, landing craft, freighters and tankers, LSTs and LSIs, long range fighter aircraft, transport aircraft and bomber crews. If they had unlimited resources, why werent they making adequate supplies of these items?

As to the uboats, I don't think that our highly rational (and victory driven) bretheren are just buying tanks so that they can push them around the parking lot! (Although that may have something to do with it.) They're not buying uboats because they don't see an adequate return on investment! Clearly, the Germans did. As I have said in another post, the uboat was just another variant of the strategic bomber. It is clear to everyone who has played this game, IMHO, that uboats are not delivering the kind of strategic results that they should be. When you see a wargame produce the same, ahistorical result, over and over and over, it is not the fault of player perversity, it is the fault of the gaming system. When was the last time you saw a game where there was a battle for Norway and then repeated battles around the North Cape to interdict supplies to the USSR? How about tension filled weeks, streching into months wondering if the British were going to have fuel for its weapons and food for its people? How about the last time you saw the Luftwaffe mount a year long bombing campaign against England? These are SYSTEM failures. Fortunately, most can be corrected with some tweaks, not major revisions. The discussion about the pp values for the US before the war is a good example of this.

[cpdeyoung]

Morning Mike,
 
Nope, We are going to agree to disagree on this one.  CBI suffered because it was low on the pole.  Even wealthy nations have priorities, lucky for us we are in the theater with the highest.  Great Britain was short of everything, but the USA did a lot to help.  Remember it was the US troops who were "overfed, oversexed, and over here", not the Tommies.  Yes, trained crews, trained infantry, these are not made in a factory.  The Allies were "short" of this and short of that, and any nation in the world would have traded places with them in a heartbeat.  Only their vaunting ambitions made them "short", let me check the garage, yep, still short that Ferrari!
 
No return on investment : where have any of us seen the investment?  Point me to a navalist AAR. No I have not seen an Axis player who played a naval strategy, and until I do I will hold off on commenting on the ROI.  I look in the AAR folder and I don't see many examples.  How are we getting all these consensus opinions.  Gary and I had zero examples of how to play another human when we started over a month ago.  The ability to PBEM is new to this game.  Except for variants in Sweden, how many PBEM games have been played?  Is it even a dozen?
 
It is very sad that this game has not matured, with multitudes of games behind us, and multitudes of players too.  Now we are in such a flux that AARs almost certainly are being posted now that will have no relevance to the rule set six months from now.  We are rushing forward with a slew of changes that may work.  I hope they work because they are radical.  A surrounded unit take a three phase step down, all units may move at least one hex, etc.  "But Chuck, these are the changes we asked for!  We'll be happy once X is added, (changed), (removed)!"  Want to bet?  Remember a few months ago everyone was big on getting an AI fixed to build lines to prevent the Axis from running wild in the USSR.  Now, when I try to maintain a line, with some success, everyone wants to reduce my ability to do so.  Incremental change is good, patience is good, and above all lets get some more AARs so we can see what we are talking about.
 
Chuck